This attempts to counter some of the foolish comments made
about Trump's withdrawal from Syria.
The least foolish of these is that the battle against ISIS
is not won. No it isn't, and Trump's
claim that it is, is plainly false. But
to harp on this is absurd.
For one thing, there isn't the slightest possibility that
keeping US troops in Syria would win the battle, or prevent an ISIS
resurgence. ISIS' ultimate strength
lies, not in its Syrian or Iraqi enclaves, but in what the West and Arab
authoritarian governments have done to the peoples of the region, and in the
conditions in Muslim countries worldwide.
These conditions guarantee a literally unending stream of militants
seeking justice and revenge. The notion
that 2000 US troops would affect this dynamic is ludicrous. Equally foolish are the tiresome
recommendations that the underlying conditions be addressed. The sage pundits who say these things know
perfectly well that the West will never, ever address these conditions: it can't, because they occur in sovereign
states. It would take a Western
occupation of those states, involving hundreds of thousands of troops for
decades, to cure the injustices of the region, and even then it's not clear
that the economic basis for healthy societies exists. In other words, whatever the West is going to
do, whatever leadership it has, ISIS won't be defeated. What then is the point of warning us that Trump's withdrawal will not defeat ISIS?
For another, forget the mantra about how effective the
Kurds have been against ISIS. Their
victories are almost entirely the result of overwhelming US air and artillery
support. Their actual capabilities are
better assessed by looking at how even a much-weakened ISIS can rout Kurdish
forces with attacks during storms and under other conditions inimical to air
operations. The Syrian rebels, not to
mention the Turkish army, would be at least as effective as the Kurds in
combating ISIS, and they wouldn't need a US ground presence to do it.
There is more foolishness.
It is said that withdrawal shows the US to be an unreliable
ally, and that this is a dire mistake.
In the first place, nothing says you're unreliable like
supporting, with weapons, troops and air power, the armed, active enemy of your
ally. That's what the US did when it
backed the Syrian arm of the Kurdish PKK against its NATO ally, Turkey. So Trump's withdrawal of this support could
well be seen as a return to reliability, not the abandonment of it.
Second, it's unclear that appearing unreliable in this
instance would make much difference to the US position in the world. Nations are allied to the US, not because
they have touching faith in America, but because they have little choice. They don't want to fall under Russian or
Chinese domination. The idea that
alliances are made and preserved on trust runs contrary to all historical
precedent. It's childish.
It is said that US withdrawal is a gift to Putin.
This carries absurdity into insanity. The unspoken truth about the US' Kurdish
'allies' is that they are also allies
of Russia and Assad. In the 2015
campaigns against rebel Aleppo, Russia and Assad even provided air support to
the Kurds. Later, Assad secured for the
Kurds a road whereby they could move between their Northeastern and Northwestern
territories. He also pays for much of
the infrastructure in the Northeastern provinces. This means that, in allying with the PKK/YPG,
the US is allied to Assad, Russia... and
Iran. It's true that Putin probably
enjoys seeing the US leave; he doesn't want a US presence in Syria. But it's also true that Obama, and until now
Trump, have been fighting on Putin's side.
He now faces an expanded Turkish presence in Northern Syria, which
threatens and complicates his relations with Assad and Iran. Because Turkey backs the rebels, it even
threatens the security of Russian bases in Latakia and Tartous. Trump's withdrawal means the US will mend
relations with Turkey. That in turn
means Putin can't expect to pry that country - a real strategic prize that
until recently seemed almost within his grasp - away from its Western alliance. Finally, the US retains its air bases and
naval presence in the region, so that US withdrawal of 2000 troops from Syria
makes not the slightest difference to the regional balance of power. Some gift.
It is said, with feeling, that the Kurds have been betrayed.
Even if there is some truth to this, it is foolish. For one thing, the Kurds have been supremely
opportunistic in their choice of allies.
They feigned neutrality when the rebels were strong, yet with increasing
frankness came out on Assad's side when the rebels faltered. For another, the morality of betrayal depends
on circumstances. The Kurds chose to
ally with a régime so monstrous that adjectives like 'brutal' can't begin to
capture the extent of its atrocities.
When the King of Italy abandoned Mussolini in 1943 he betrayed
Hitler. Was that reprehensible?
The criticism of Trump's withdrawal, though couched in the
language of morality and even honour, is curiously oblivious to the sort of
humanitarian considerations that you'd think would belong to those values. The most likely consequence of US withdrawal
- should it really occur - is that Northern Syria will become a refuge for
perhaps millions of Syrians, under Turkish protection. Meanwhile in the rest of Syria, as widely
predicted, Syrians in formerly rebel areas are subjected to arbitrary
imprisonment, torture, and murder. But
sure, pontificate some more about the US withdrawal.
